Re: [wg-b] An idea?

["Gregory A. Schuckman" <schuckman@starpower.net>]

Mike:

I support Marilyn's opinion and her suggestion that you have a "future work
ideas" section appended to the report to allow for continued brainstorming
by members of wg-b.  However, one comment I will make on your modified UDRP
suggestion is that you would have to establish some type of "UDRP Defense
Fund" so that those who could not afford the $750 could legitimately defend
their name.  As to how the fund is administered, I could envision some
impartial committee that would screen the requests for assistance whereby
those who are registering in bad faith would be denied funding (and
presumably, would abandon their defense of the name registered in bad faith
as well).  Of course, the matter of impartiality and the subjectivity of
such a Committee would require a work group unto its own...

As many have said before, will the final report be sent to the wg-b for an
up/down vote or is wg-b adjourned?

Thanks,

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <mcade@att.com>
To: <mpalage@infonetworks.com>; Wg-B@Dnso. Org <wg-b@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-b] An idea?


> Michael, while some new ideas may be useful to consider, I don't see how
> this particular idea can be incorporated in the Working Group B report.
>
> If they came in as comments, they can be appended, right? If they are new
> thoughts/suggestions, then they should be treated as such, and a suggested
> process to discuss/develop them should be recommended.  Perhaps the report
> should have a section at the end where "future work ideas" can be
provided.
>
>
> You've done a lot of work on the report, and your commitment, and patience
> is much appreciated.
>
> Best regards, Marilyn Cade
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:mpalage@infonetworks.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 12:11 PM
> To: Wg-B@Dnso. Org
> Subject: [wg-b] An idea?
>
>
> In the process of preparing Working Group B's Final Report to the Names
> Counsel this weekend, I was reading over all of the comments that were
> submitted during the comment period. And the following idea came to me
> during a brain storming session with another attorney. I think it offers
an
> interesting idea that was never considered.  I would like to hear any
> "constructive" feedback that people have on this idea.
>
> Temporarily Modified UDRP During the Rollout of a New Top-Level Domain
Name
>
> Any new top-level domain would be added to the root with no preferential
> pre-registration rights. However, in those top-level domains where
> additional trademark protection would be deemed necessary to thwart
abusive
> bad faith registration, a modified UDRP would apply for a limited time
> period, say 30 to 60 days. During this start up phrase (30 to 60 days),
any
> third party (Complainant) challenging a domain name registration in this
new
> top level domain would contact a dispute provider and deposit the required
> fee (approximately $750 under the current provider rules). The dispute
> provider would then contact the domain name registrant and inquire if they
> wish to respond to the third party challenge. (Note: A significant number
of
> UDRP are default proceeding where the domain name registrant never
replied).
> If the domain name registrant wishes to respond to the challenge they
would
> be required to deposit the same required fee as deposited by the
> Complainant. If the domain name registrant (Respondent) declined to
respond
> to the Complainant, the domain name would be transferred to the
Complainant
> along with a refund of the initial fee. Unlike the current UDRP
proceeding,
> there would be no need for a written opinion in a default proceeding.
>
> If the Respondent posts the required fee, the dispute provider will
conduct
> a proceeding using the existing UDRP rules. If the Respondent wins, the
> dispute provider will collect its fees from the Complainant and refund the
> deposit of the Respondent. However, if the Complainant prevails in a
finding
> of bad faith, the dispute provider will collect its fees from the
Respondent
> and refund the deposit of the Complainant.
>
> For those proceeding in which there is a default proceeding, the dispute
> provider will be compensated for their administrative oversight by a fund
> maintained by the registry. In order to share this burden equally among
the
> entire Internet community, there will be a registry fee surcharge (less
than
> a dollar) that will be accessed to all domain name registration in that
new
> top-level domain. After the start-up phase (30 to 60 days) there will be
no
> addition surcharge on domain name registrations and the UDRP rules will
> return to normal, i.e. a Complainant must pay the full fee in order to
> initiate a challenge.
>
> The benefits of this proposal are that there are no preferential
> pre-registration rights given to anyone. Additionally, the economics of
> abusive domain name registrations would be temporarily altered during this
> land-rush phase to create a disincentive for these types of bad faith
> registrations. Under the current system, a $20 dollar domain name
> registration imposes upon the Complainant an obligation to initiate a $750
> dollar proceeding. However, under the current proposal, people engaged in
> abusive domain name registrations would be reluctant to expand any
> investment in bad faith registrations if they would be required to invest
> several hundred dollars in a potential losing cause.  Finally, this system
> allows individual and small business the opportunity to register a domain
> name of their choice and only have to expend a nominal fee to defend their
> registrant if it is challenged, with the guarantee that if they prevail
they
> will be refunded their deposit.
>
> Just a last minute idea, any thoughts?
>
> Michael Palage
>
> P.S. Happy Mother's Day to any mothers on the list
>
>